Indianapolis archdiocese: Jesuit school no longer considered Catholic (RTV6)
Editor’s Note: Archbishop Charles Thompson of Indianapolis will announce tomorrow that Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School can no longer be considered a Catholic institution, after the school refused to cut ties with a teacher who is a partner in a same-sex marriage. The Jesuit school issued a statement in advance of the archbishop’s public decree, saying that its trustees “respectfully declined” to comply with archdiocesan poli
Archdiocese of Indianapolis to cut ties with Brebeuf Jesuit after school refuses to fire teacher living in a gay ‘marriage.’
Posted: 1:20 PM, Jun 20, 2019 Updated: 3:03 PM, Jun 20, 2019
INDIANAPOLIS — Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School says the Archdiocese of Indianapolis is no longer going to recognize them as a Catholic school, likely because of their refusal to fire a teacher who in a same-sex marriage.
The Board of Trustees for Brebeuf shared the announcement in a letter to the parents, teachers and staff on Thursday, saying they were informed that the “formal decree” would be announced by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in the Criterion on or around Friday, June 21.
“Brebeuf Jesuit was founded in 1962 as an independent Catholic Jesuit school,” the letter to the Brebeuf Community said. “While we’ve enjoyed a collaborative partnership with the Archdiocese for nearly 57 years, we have always maintained control of our school’s operations and governance, including our personnel decisions.”
Statement to the Brebeuf Jesuit Community
Below is a message that was sent to the Brebeuf Jesuit Community on Thursday, June 20, 2019.
Dear Brebeuf Jesuit Community,
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, we write to share news regarding Brebeuf Jesuit’s relationship with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. We want to inform you, our faithful members of the Brebeuf Jesuit community, of this news first and invite you to pray with us for a peaceful and just outcome.
Brebeuf Jesuit was founded in 1962 as an independent Catholic Jesuit school. While we’ve enjoyed a collaborative partnership with the Archdiocese for nearly 57 years, we have always maintained control of our school’s operations and governance, including our personnel decisions. It is our understanding that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, at the direction of Archbishop Charles Thompson, will no longer formally recognize Brebeuf Jesuit as a Catholic school in the Archdiocese. We understand that a formal decree announcing the Archdiocese’s decision will be published in The Criterion on or around Friday, June 21.
A Sincere Disagreement
The decree follows a sincere and significant disagreement between the Archdiocese, on the one hand, and Brebeuf Jesuit and the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus, on the other, regarding whether the Archdiocese or our school’s leaders should make final governance decisions related to internal administrative matters at Brebeuf Jesuit and, in particular, the employment status of our faculty and staff. Specifically, Brebeuf Jesuit has respectfully declined the Archdiocese’s insistence and directive that we dismiss a highly capable and qualified teacher due to the teacher being a spouse within a civilly-recognized same-sex marriage.
To our knowledge, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented; this is a unique action among the more than 80 Jesuit secondary/pre-secondary schools which operate in dioceses throughout North America, along with the countless Catholic schools operated by other religious orders such as the Christian Brothers, Dominicans, and Xaverian Brothers.
After long and prayerful consideration, we determined that following the Archdiocese’s directive would not only violate our informed conscience on this particular matter, but also set a concerning precedent for future interference in the school’s operations and other governance matters that Brebeuf Jesuit leadership has historically had the sole right and privilege to address and decide.
What’s more, we also recognize the harm that adhering to this mandate would cause our highly capable and qualified teachers and staff. As an institution with a mission to develop men and women for others, our intent has been to do the right thing by the people we employ while preserving our authority as an independent, Catholic Jesuit school.
Brebeuf Jesuit’s Continued Catholic Identity
Since our founding, Brebeuf Jesuit’s mission as a Catholic institution has been derived from the Society of Jesus—the Jesuits—who represent the largest order of men in the Catholic Church. This position has been affirmed in our close consultation with both the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus and Brebeuf Jesuit’s canon lawyer. While we appreciate our long-standing partnership with the Archdiocese, which praised Brebeuf Jesuit’s Catholic mission in a recent evaluation, we are disheartened that the Archbishop has chosen to end our formal relationship. Nevertheless, our identity as a Catholic Jesuit institution remains unchanged.
Whereas the Archdiocese of Indianapolis may choose to no longer attend or participate in the school’s Masses and formal functions, Brebeuf Jesuit is, and will always be, a Catholic Jesuit school. The Archdiocese has assured us that Jesuit priests may continue to serve at Brebeuf Jesuit and will retain their ability to celebrate the sacraments of the Catholic Church.
What Happens Next
As we look to the school year ahead, Brebeuf Jesuit’s Board of Trustees and school leadership will remain focused on providing an exceptional education within the Jesuit tradition. We are prayerfully discerning how best to proceed with the process of appealing the Archdiocese’s directive.
We understand that this news will likely spur a host of emotions, questions and even confusion in the days ahead. Please be assured, the Archdiocese’s decision will not change the mission or operations of Brebeuf Jesuit. With more than 8,000 graduates over nearly six decades, the mission of Brebeuf Jesuit is being lived around the world. We will continue to offer a rigorous academic program that follows more than 450 years of Jesuit tradition and is committed to expansive and critical thinking, competent and compassionate ethical concern, creative and artistic expression, and excellence grounded in faith and the dignity of the human person.
We urge members of the Brebeuf Jesuit community to be respectful of all parties involved, and we ask that you join us in keeping our students, faculty, staff and the entire Catholic community of greater Indianapolis in your thoughts and prayers.
We will keep you apprised of any new developments, and we invite you to contact us at email@example.com with questions, concerns and feedback.
Fr. William Verbryke, S.J. – President
W. Patrick Bruen ’79 – Board of Trustees, Chair
Daniel M. Lechleiter ’97 – Board of Trustees, Chair-elect
Students for Life of America Celebrates 9thCircuit Appeals Court Affirmation of the Protect Life Rule
“For too long, abortion vendors misused Title X family planning funds as a marketing scheme, trying to close an abortion sale every time a woman came into the office,” said SFLA’s Kristan Hawkins. “Separating family planning from abortion is a good beginning in restoring Title X to its original purpose – helping people plan for families, not end families.”
WASHINGTON D.C. (06-20-19) – Reacting to news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Trump Administration efforts to restore the Title X program to a family planning focus, rather than an abortion sales referral, Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins made the following remarks: “Once again, the Trump Administration shows their commitment to severing the funding stream that has flowed from taxpayers to Planned Parenthood’s bloated coffers. People don’t want to be in business with the nation’s number one abortion vendor, and if Planned Parenthood wants to provide family planning services, then rules are in place to make sure that the focus stay on family, not abortion.”
Students for Life has been active in advocating for life-affirming, Title X regulations.
Students for Life of America is the nation’s largest pro-life youth organization. Headquartered in Fredericksburg, VA, Students for Life has more than 1,200 groups on college and high school campuses located in all fifty states.
JUNE 12, 2018ChangesFLA BACKS LIFE-SAVING TITLE X CHANGES
“For too long, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have infiltrated the Title X program, siphoning off family planning resources to fatten their bottom lines and to market abortion vendors’ deadly product,” said SFLA’s Kristan Hawkins. “But abortion is not contraception or healthcare.”
Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins announced this week that the nationwide network of more than 1,200 college and university chapters in all 50 states would be rallying pro-life Millennials and Generation Z to express their support for the Trump Administration changes to the Title X family planning program. Through July 31, people are being asked to comment about the changes proposed by the Trump Administration. Comments can be made by following this link at the Federal Register.
WATCH THIS Video of Kristan Hawkins to learn more about the need for and the ease of commenting on the Title X Protect Life rule.
People expressing their views at the website should note that all comments will be made public, which means that if you do not want personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information made public, don’t include it. Comments may be submitted anonymously and should be labeled “Family Planning.”
Hawkins said that SFLA supporters were encouraged to support the vital changes that would redirect scarce taxpayer resources away from locations selling abortions, would require that abortions not referred for or sold as part of the program, and would demand that crimes against the women who come for appointments be reported (such as sexual abuse or sex trafficking.)
Hawkins observed, “Allowing locations that sell abortions to co-mingle their staff, costs, and purpose with programs designed to help women plan for families pollutes the purpose of Title X’s family planning mission. Abortionists should not be permitted to essentially double bill American taxpayers by setting up a storefront and charging for everything from so-called ‘education’ to any other product they can invoice. When you consider that there are more than 13,500 community health centers compared to little more than 660 Planned Parenthood clinics, it’s clear that women have many healthy choices for healthcare. It’s time to restore the family planning program to life-affirming locations designed to help women as they plan for their families.”
The Amazon Train Has Pulled Out. Next Stop Germany
As of Monday June 17 the synod for the Amazon scheduled for this October in Rome has its “Instrumentum laboris,” the base document for discussions.
It runs to 59 dense pages, but these few lines from its paragraph 129 are enough to understand where Pope Francis wants to arrive:
“Affirming that celibacy is a gift for the Church, it is requested that, for the remoter zones of the region, the possibility be studied of the priestly ordination of mature men, preferably indigenous, respected and accepted by their communities, even though they may already have an established and stable family, for the sake of guaranteeing the sacraments that accompany and sustain the Christian life.”
The last time the pope had outlined this objective had been at the press conference on the flight back from Panama on January 27 2019, when to the question: “Will you allow married men to become priests?” he first responded by repeating with Paul VI: “I would rather lay down my life than change the law of celibacy,” but immediately afterward admitted a possibility of that kind “in remoter areas” like in the “Pacific islands” and “perhaps” in the Amazon and “in many places.” And he ended with a recommendation to read a bookby Bishop Fritz Lobinger that presents among others the idea – “interesting” according to Francis – of ordaining these married men and granting them the sole “munus,” the task, of administering the sacraments, not those of teaching and governing as well, as has instead always happened in every sacred ordination.
Lobinger, 90, was bishop in Aliwal, South Africa, from 1988 to 2004. But he was born and raised in Germany, where he lives to this day. And he is not the first German bishop or theologian whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio has enlistedin recent years to increase attention and agreement for the ordination of married men, with the Amazon as the launch pad.
Before him can be cited the theologian and spiritual master Wunibald Müller, with whom Francis corresponded in 2015 on this very topic, in letters that were later made public by Müller himself.
But above all one must remember the bishop emeritus of the Brazilian prelature of Xingu, Erwin Kräutler, 80, Austrian, a member of the preparatory committee of the synod for the Amazon, who in repeated meetings with the pope has always received warm encouragement from him to fight for this result, now also as a member of the synod preparatory committee.
Not to mention Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, 85, Brazilian but from a German family, he too for years an open supporter of the ordination of married men, president of the pan-Amazonian ecclesial network that unites 25 cardinals and bishops of the countries of that area, and tapped by the pope as relator general of the synod.
All with the unfailing blessing of Bergoglio’s favorite among the German cardinals and theologians, Walter Kasper, 86, who in a recent interview with the newspaper “Frankfurter Rundschau” said that Francis expects only to put his signature to a decision of the synod in favor of the ordination of married men.
The connection between the Argentine pope and Germany is not only characteristic, however, of this synod for the Amazon. It also has a before and after.
The “before” was the genesis of the twofold synod on the family.
When Bergoglio, elected pope for less than a year, entrusted to Cardinal Kasper the introductory talk for the consistory of February 2014 and Kasper upheld in it nothing less than granting Eucharistic communion for the divorced and remarried, the fate of the synod on the family was already written.
That synod, in the two sessions of 2014 and 2015, split down the middle on that question, but Francis decided anyway, on his authority, to arrive at the predetermined objective, albeit in the ambiguous form of a footnote in the postsynodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”
And since then any bishop of the world has been able to authorize, in his diocese, that communion for the divorced and remarried which was first backed, in the 1990’s, by precisely some of the bishops of Germany with Kasper in the lead, firmly opposed, back then, by Pope John Paul II and by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.
After the twofold synod on the family there was an intermission at the Vatican, this too with a whiff of Germany, or more precisely of that city of German Switzerland named Sankt Gallen, the site of meetings, before and after 2000, of that club of progressive cardinals – future grand electors of Bergoglio to the papacy – which had in the Germans Karl Lehmann and Kasper and in the Italian and Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini its leading representatives.
It was a matter of deciding the topic of the subsequent synod, and at the very top of Pope Francis’s agenda was the question of the ordination of married men.
That is, another of those “key issues” which Cardinal Martini had proposed to address in a series of linked synods, in his memorable remark to the 1999 synod in which he listed them as follows:
“The shortage of ordained ministers, the role of woman in society and in the Church, the discipline of marriage, the Catholic vision of sexuality….”
But Bergoglio decided to temporize, and assigned to the synod scheduled for October of 2018 the theme of young people, with the implication of discussing there, perhaps, “the Catholic vision of sexuality,” including homosexuality.
Then this implication did not take shape, because of a prudential decisionby Bergoglio himself during the proceedings, and the synod on young people ended up being one of the most boring and useless in history.
But there was also the special synod for the Amazon scheduled for 2019. And here Martini’s agenda has been taken up in full, not only with the ordination of married men practically decided before the synod has begun, but even with an enigmatic wish, expressed in paragraph 129 of the “Instrumentum laboris,” for “identifying the type of official ministry that could be conferred on women,” which would not be the “female diaconate,” put off by Pope Francis for “further exploration,” but would still be a “ministry,” perhaps sacramental.
But it’s not over. Because the synod for the Amazon will also have an “after.” And it will have it precisely in Germany.
Last March the German episcopal conference, gathered in plenary assembly in Lingen, put into the works a national synod with three preparatory “forums” on the following themes:
– “Power, participation, separation of powers,” presided over by Speyer bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesemann; – “Sexual morality,” presided over by Osnabrück bishop Franz-Josef Bode; – “Form of priestly life,” presided over by Münster bishop Felix Genn.
Once again the agenda is solidly Martini, and in the introductory talks of the plenary assembly in Lingen it was said “apertis verbis” that the intention is to arrive both at legitimizing homosexual acts (an unfulfilled objective of the synod on young people), and at introducing the ordination of married men in Germany as well (so no longer just in the remote outskirts of the Church like the Amazon).
There is also the insistence that for such decisions a majority vote is enough, without a minority being able to block it from going into effect and without requiring a go-ahead from the Catholic Church as a whole.
Everything makes it clear that Francis has not raised objections to this program of the Church of Germany.
Which is one of the most disaster-ridden Churches in the world, with all the needles in the red except for that of monetary wealth. And yet promoted by Bergoglio as the beacon of his pontificate.
For a critical interpretation of the synod for the Amazon, in Italian and English: > Pan-Amazon SynodCondividi:
The working document for the upcoming synod of bishops on the Amazon region represents a “total opening of the gates of the Magisterium to Indian theology and eco-theology” which includes “clearly pagan” and “pantheistic elements of belief,” a Chilean author has said.
José Antonio Ureta of the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute, part of the Tradition, Family and Property movement founded the eponymous Catholic thinker, said the new document opens the Church up to these two theologies which are “two Latin American derivatives of liberation theology.”
Like liberation theology, he added, the working document’s starting point is not Christian Revelation but rather the “supposed ‘oppression’ in the Amazon region, making it a “privileged interlocutor” and a “source of God’s revelation” — quotes from the working document itself.
He noted that the document, called an instrumental laboris which forms the basis for the discussions at the Oct. 6-27 synod, exalts Indian theology to such an extent that it limits the Church to “dialoguing” with the indigenous people rather than seeking their conversion, and calls on the Church to “enrich herself with clearly pagan and / or pantheistic elements of belief.”
“Not even witchcraft is sidelined in this enrichment,” Ureta added, partly because it states that “indigenous rituals and ceremonies are essential for integral health.”
But he believes a “real earthquake” is the document’s paragraph no. 127 where it states:
“…it would be opportune to reconsider the notion that the exercise of jurisdiction (power of government) must be connected in all areas (sacramental, judicial, administrative) and in a permanent way to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”
Ureta said the passage calls into question a structure of the Church, between clergy and laity, which has been affirmed since the First Council of Nicaea, obscuring the “essential difference” between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood of clerics.
“The latter is rooted in the apostolic succession and endowed with a sacred power,” he reaffirmed.
This “dilution” of the Catholic priesthood, he continued, naturally leads to a reconsideration of priestly celibacy (the document invites a study of ordaining elders with families), and “even worse,” he said, a passage in the document calling for an “official ministry” for women.
Ureta added that “from an ecological point of view,” the instrumentum laboris shows an acceptance for the “deification of nature” promoted in UN conferences on the environment since at least 1972.
“This neo-pagan UN agenda is now proposed by a Synodal Assembly of the Catholic Church,” Ureta said.
He went on to say that the working document is also “an apology” for the “worst kind” of communism, “disguised as communitarianism,” and in the form of “collectivism of small communities.”
And he added that the indigenous philosophy of “good living” (sumak kawsay), which figures highly in the working document, assumes an “intercommunication between the whole cosmos, in which no one excludes or is excluded” and proposes a communitarian lifestyle where “feeling, thinking and acting” are the same.
Ureta concluded by saying that it is a reminder of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s denunciation of indigenous tribalism as a “new and even more radical stage of the Anarchist Revolution,” one which ends up “devouring freedom” as independent thought, will and ways of being are “merged” into the “collective personality of the tribe.”
“The instrumentum laboris is nothing short of an invitation for humanity to take a fatal step towards the final abyss of the anti-Christian Revolution,” Ureta warned.
Antiquated and Inchoate Assumptions
Further criticism of the document came from Margaret Petito, president of non-profit Friends of Rule of Law in Ecuador, Inc., who said the document is “based on antiquated, inchoate political assumptions” and, in a “dysfunctional” way, “lacks observable, verifiable real time facts about the large region of the world it portends to assist.”
She added that “however well-intentioned the instrumentum laboris may appear, its substance precludes actual Christian practice in Latin America, now noticeably in crisis.” The document, she believes, “does nothing” to address the “real crises” in the region.
At yesterday’s press conference, veteran Italian Vaticanista Sandro Magister asked why the document speaks both positively and negatively of Pentecostalism, but only positively about the indigenous religions. He noted that it makes no mention of cannibalism or infanticide practiced by some tribes.
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, responded by stressing the positive “values” of the traditional religions, adding that preaching the Gospel to the indigenous tribes “purifies” them.
Petito believes it is “utter balderdash” to portray the pre-colonial peoples of the region as “happy-clappy” people “in harmony with nature.” She added that the Incas, the Latin American Indians living in the region before the Spanish conquest and from which Indian theology is derived, “ruled with a fierce, cruel Stalinesque totality from Venezuela through Chile.”
“Death was the Incan primary god and all existed as slaves to serve the central state,” Petito explained.
Asked if, as Ureta and others believe, the synod is potentially a “platform” to launch a “new syncretic Church” which mixes Christianity with the pagan religion of the region’s indigenous people, Cardinal Baldiserri told reporters on Monday he did not see “elements” in the working document that would “suppose the existence of syncretism.”
He said it “expresses the Church’s true doctrine” in the Amazonian “context” while “opening avenues for a more incisive evangelization.”
The cardinal also told reporters there are “many versions” of liberation theology, not all of which are negative, and that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger produced two documents examining the theology. In any case, he said, the instrumentum laborisis just a “preliminary” document for the synod.
The assembly of bishops promises to show the “image of a Church with an Amazonian face,” Cardinal Baldisseri said, “courageous in its prophetic proclamation of the Gospel in defence of Creation and of indigenous peoples.”
This is the “horizon towards which we walk under Pope Francis’ guidance,” he said, “to share an experience of fraternal communion, collegiality and synodality.”
Here below is José Antonio Ureta’s full statement:
The Church at the Service of the Neo-Pagan Agenda
The Instrumentum laboris of the coming Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, made public this morning, represents a total opening of the gates of the Magisterium to Indian Theology and Ecotheology, two Latin American derivatives of Liberation Theology. After the collapse of the USSR and the failure of “real socialism”, the advocates of Liberation Theology (LT), on the Marxist style, attributed the historic role of revolutionary force to indigenous peoples and to nature.
Like LT, the Instrumentum laboris does not take the Revelation of God contained in the Bible and in Tradition as the basis for its ruminations, but rather the supposed “oppression” to which the Amazon is said to be subject. Thus, from a simple geographical and cultural area, the Amazon becomes a “privileged interlocutor,” a “theological place,” “an epiphanic place,” and a “source of God’s revelation: (n° 2, 18 and 19).
From a theological point of view, the Instrumentum laboris not only recommends the teaching of Indian Theology “in all educational institutions” for “a better and greater understanding of indigenous spirituality” and to “take into consideration myths, traditions, symbols, knowledge, rites and original celebrations” (n ° 98). It also repeats all its postulates throughout the document. That is to say, the “seeds of the Word” are present not only in the aboriginal people’s ancestral beliefs, but they have “grown and given fruit” (n° 120) so that the Church, instead of her traditional evangelization that seeks conversion, must limit herself to “dialoguing” with Indians as “the active subject of inculturation are the indigenous peoples themselves” (No. 122).
In this intercultural dialogue, the Church must also enrich herself with clearly pagan and / or pantheistic elements of beliefs such as “faith in God the Father-Mother Creator,” “relations with ancestors,” “communion and harmony with the earth” (n ° 121) and connection with “the various spiritual forces” (n ° 13). Not even witchcraft is sidelined by this “enrichment”. According to the document, “The richness of the flora and fauna of the forest contains real ‘living pharmacopoeias’ and unexplored genetic principles” (No. 86). In this context, “Indigenous rituals and ceremonies are essential for integral health because they integrate the different cycles of human life and nature. They create harmony and balance between human beings and the cosmos. They protect life from the evils that can be caused by both humans and other living beings. They help to cure diseases that damage the environment, human life and other living beings” (No. 87).
On the ecclesiological level, the Instrumentum laboris is a real earthquake that undermines the hierarchical structure that the Church has by Divine mandate. In the name of “incarnation” in the Amazon culture, the document invites us to reconsider “the idea that the exercise of jurisdiction (power of government) must be connected in all areas (sacramental, judicial, administrative) and permanently to the Sacrament of Order” (No. 127). It is inconceivable for the Synod’s working document to call into question a doctrine of Faith as is the distinction, in the structure of the Church, between clergy and laity, which has been affirmed since the First Council of Nicaea and is based on the essential difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood of clerics. The latter is rooted in the apostolic succession and endowed with a sacred power.
Along with this dilution of the Catholic priesthood, which becomes somewhat similar to that of a Protestant pastor, comes a call to reconsider the obligatory nature of celibacy and, even worse, to identify what kind of “official ministry” can be conferred on women (§ 3 ). Cardinal Joseph-Albert Malula, from Zaire, and Most Rev. Samuel Ruiz, of the Diocese of Chiapas, will have turned in their graves upon seeing that the projects they tried to achieve (which the Vatican quickly rejected) are now proposed by a Synod, which according to its organizers, has a certain universal dimension.
From an ecological point of view, the Instrumentum laboris represents the Church’s acceptance of the deification of nature promoted by the UN conferences on the environment.
In fact, official UN documents, already in 1972, claimed that man has mismanaged natural resources mainly due to “a certain philosophical conception of the world.” While “pantheistic theories … attributed part of the divinity to living beings … scientific discoveries led to … a kind of desacralization of natural beings,” the best justification of which is reaffirmed “in the Judeo-Christian conceptions according to which God created man in his image and gave him the earth to subdue.” Conversely, the UN said, practicing the cult of ancestors “constituted a bulwark for the environment, since trees or water courses were protected and revered as a reincarnation of ancestors” (Aspects éducatifs, sociaux et culturels des problèmes de l’environnement et questions de l’information, UN General Assembly, Stockholm, June 5-6 1972, A/CONF.48.9, p. 8 & 9).
In the closing speech of Rio 92 in Rio de Janeiro, the then-UN Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali declared that “for the ancients, the Nile was a god that was worshiped, as was the Rhine, an infinite source of European myths, or the Amazon rainforest, mother of all forests. Everywhere, nature was the home of gods. They gave the forest, the desert, the mountain, a personality that imposed adoration and respect. The Earth had a soul. Finding it, resurrecting it: this is the essence [of the Intergovernmental Conference] in Rio.” (A / CONF.151 / 26, vol. IV, p. 76).
And this neo-pagan UN agenda is now proposed by a Synodal Assembly of the Catholic Church!
Citing a document from Bolivia, the Instrumentum laboris states that, “the forest is not a resource to be exploited, it is a being or more beings with which to relate” (n ° 23); it continues by stating that “The life of the Amazon communities still unaffected by the influence of Western civilization [sic], is reflected in the beliefs and rituals regarding the action of spirits, of the divinity – called in so many names – with and in the territory, with and in relation to nature. This cosmovision is summarized in the “mantra” of Francis: ‘everything is connected’” (n ° 25).
From the socio-economic point of view, the Instrumentum laboris is an apology of communism, disguised as “communitarianism”. Moreover, it is the worst form of communism: the collectivism of small communities. In fact, according to the document the aborigines’ project of “good living” (sumak kawsay) assumes that “there is an intercommunication between the whole cosmos, in which no one excludes or is excluded.” The explanatory note on the indigenous word refers to a declaration by various indigenous entities, titled “The Cry of the Sumak Kawsay in Amazonia,” which states that the word “is an oldest and newest Word” (with a capital W in the text; that is, a Divine Revelation) which proposes “a communitarian lifestyle with one and the same FEELING, THINKING AND ACTING” (capital letters also from the original).
This phrase reminds us of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s denunciation, in 1976, that indigenous tribalism was a new and even more radical stage of the Anarchist Revolution: “Structuralists see tribal life as an illusory synthesis between the apex of individual freedom and consensual collectivism, in which the latter ends up devouring freedom. According to structuralism, in this collectivism the various ‘I’s and individual persons, with their thought, will, sensibility and ways of being, characteristic and discrepant, are merged and dissolved in the collective personality of the tribe, which generates an intensely common thinking, will, and way of being.”
The Instrumentum laboris is nothing short of an invitation for humanity to take a fatal step towards the final abyss of the anti-Christian Revolution.
Translated from the Spanish by James BascomCategories: Uncategorized
Bobby 19/06/2019ReplyWe are constantly on guard against outside forces looking to destroy the Church yet turn a blind eye to wolves in bishops array already in our midst. Pray for our Church. Pray.
Charles O’Connell 19/06/2019ReplyQ. How did Juan Peron treat indigenous peoples? A. In October 1947, during the government of Juan D. Pero´n, another event took place that has been silenced through generations and only recently returned to daylight, since a federal judge is now investigating it under the legal rubric of genocide. At that time, massive layoffs in the sugar refineries of the Argentinean northwest resulted in famine among the communities of the Chaco region. Since their lands had been expropriated, the chaquense communities sold their labor to the sugarcane harvest. In Las Lomitas, in the west of the province of Formosa, thousands of Indigenous people gathered around a charismatic priest/ healer and a Discussing Indigenous Genocide in Argentina traditional chief. Although the meeting was peaceful—the Pilaga´ people only prayed and foraged for food—the Argentinean criollos’ paranoia dictated that the dispersion and the silencing of the Pilaga´ became a state affair. The federal government sent the gendarmerie, who shot and bombarded the demonstrators, chasing the survivors through the jungle for more a month and causing the death of a significant proportion of the Pilaga´ people—estimates of the numbers range from 800 to 2,000 dead.
VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpitsays:19/06/2019 at 5:02 am […] Catholic Stand Abraham Explains How to Fundraise – Brice Sokolowski at CatholicFundraiser.net Amazon Synod Working Document Criticized for Serving ‘Neo-Pagan Agenda’ – Edward Pentin Better Read Than Red: A ‘Review’ of Cardinal Zen’s Book – Derya […]Reply
Editor’s note: The interview excerpts in the following piece were given by Archbishop Viganò to Italian journalist and author Marco Tosatti as a follow-up to his Washington Post interview and were published over the weekend in Italian at Tosatti’s website. With our thanks to Giuseppe Pellegrino for the translation and Marco Tosatti for allowing us to share them, we now present the full article and in English for our audience.
VIGANÒ: I Speak Only About What I Have Seen Personally. This Is How the Gay Mafia In The Church Operates.
The interview given by Archbishop Viganò to the Washington Post, in which he reiterates his testimony about McCarrick and declares that the Pope is lying in order to cover up evildoing, has understandably aroused great interest. This is also due to the fact that his declarations have always been confirmed, for nearly a year at this point, by the documents and other testimonies which have come to light, most recently the “Figuereido Report” written by McCarrick’s former secretary. And even the anti-Viganò tirade of Cardinal Marc Ouellet contained confirmations. Even if the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops ought to now explain why he never made mention of the letter which his predecessor Cardinal Re had written to McCarrick and which both the Nuncio and the Archbishop of Washington were aware of. And naturally, Ouellet himself [also ought to explain]; however he has not mentioned it, as in his attack on Viganò. Perhaps in the hope – since he is at the end of his term as Prefect – of obtaining a prolonged tenure in his assignment, which according to several sources is going to be given to the Secretary of the Congregation, Jesus de Ilson Montanari, a very close friend of the Pope’s private secretary, Fabian Pedacchio.
In the meantime the Bransfield case exploded, the bishop who had lavished monetary gifts on many people, among whom was also the Nuncio [Archbishop Viganò]. Speaking of the homosexual mafia, Archbishop Viganò now explains that:
My comment was not abstract, but based on what I know personally, for example about McCarrick. I never received any accusation, verbal or written, against Bishop Bransfield, during my term as Nuncio in the United States. What I know about him comes from what I have read in the newspapers. Given this fact, it seems to me that what has emerged shows that Bishop Bransfield is a perfect example of what I was referring to. It is important to note that, before being named a bishop, Bransfield was rector of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, and was president of the Board of Directors of the Papal Foundation, both of which are linked to McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl. In effect, his successor as the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Walter Rossi, was named to that position by McCarrick in the same year that Bransfield was named a bishop. Msgr. Rossi is, without a doubt, a member of the ‘gay mafia.’ You can read about him online on The American Spectator website. I can say that while I was Nuncio in the United States I received documentation which affirms that Msgr. Rossi had sexually molested male students at The Catholic University of America. The Vatican, and in particular Cardinal Parolin, is well aware of the situation with Msgr. Rossi, as is Cardinal Wuerl. Finally I can testify that Rossi’s name was proposed to my predecessor Archbishop Pietro Sambi for promotion to bishop; Sambi blocked his advancement. These facts demonstrate clearly how the ‘gay mafia’ operates.
Archbishop Viganò recalls that it was the custom of the American bishops to send a gift to the new Nuncio when he began his service:
In truth I do not recall all of the names of those who were sending me these gifts, because I was not paying attention to the name of the donor on the check, because this was irrelevant for me, because I had no intention of doing favors for anyone. As I said before, my staff explained to me that this was the custom in the United States, and not accepting these gifts would have been an affront to the donors. Thus, after I had received these gifts, I immediately spent this money in my charity account. I can attach several examples of proofs of how I used my personal money together with the money from these various donations.
Some of the names I recall are Cardinal Dolan, Bishop DiMarzio, former Cardinal McCarrick, Cardinal Wuerl, but I am certain that there were also others.
I would also like to add that I recall with certainty one of these gifts made immediately after it was announced that I would be sent as Nuncio to the United States, but before I arrived in the United States. It was a gift from ex-cardinal McCarrick in the amount of $1000.
A question has arisen from the fact that several members of the faithful from West Virginia maintain that they sent a letter to the Nuncio complaining about the extravagant lifestyle of Bishop Bransfield in 2013:
Unfortunately, I do not recall having received any letter of this nature, which I would certainly remember and which I would have followed up on. That being said, the Nunciature receives many complaints every single day about all sorts of things, and it is probable enough that unfortunately this letter was not considered to be serious enough to be brought to my attention. However, the letter, if it was received, is probably filed in the archives of Nunciature, thus it may be verified.
Marco Tosatti is a renowned Italian journalist and Vatican expert. He has been covering the Holy See since 1981. His written work appears in La Stampa and La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. He is the author of several books, including The Prophecy of Fatima and Investigation of the Holy Shroud. He blogs at Marcotosatti.com.http://www.marcotosatti.com
Has the Catholic Church been infiltrated by anti-Catholic forces intent on its destruction? This is the thesis of Taylor Marshall’s new book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.
The book has already generated a lot of controversy, with one critic accusing the author of “McCarthyism” and “wild assertions.” Marshall’s main assertion is that the Church has been infiltrated by Masons, Modernists, and communists who aim to change the Church’s mission “from something supernatural to something secular.”
Marshall uses the word “infiltration” in two senses: an infiltration of personnel and an infiltration of ideas, and it’s not always clear what sense he’s using. However, in the main, he’s writing about the infiltration of ideas.
Indeed, the primary document he refers to—The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita—is less about the placement of agents than about the gradual introduction of a new climate of thought. The author of The Permanent Instruction admitted that it might take more than a century before the process produced “a pope according to our own heart.”
Was there an actual penetration of the Church by agents of communism and/or Freemasonry? Marshall does name some names, and he does offer evidence, but although his evidence is not always conclusive, it is suggestive. Earlier popes were certainly worried about the influence of Masons and Modernists. Pope Leo XIII published four encyclicals against Freemasonry, and Pope Pius X was convinced that Modernists had infiltrated the clergy and the seminaries.
Communist Infiltration Marshall also cites the testimony of Bella Dodd, a former communist agent, who told a House Committee that “in the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” Similar testimony was offered to the committee by Manning Johnson, another former agent; however, no other corroborating evidence of their testimony has been produced.
Still, the possibility of physical infiltration should not be dismissed out of hand. It’s the kind of thing that Soviet communists were capable of doing and have actually done. There is abundant evidence, for example, that communists did successfully infiltrate the Russian Orthodox Church. And, according to ex- communists such as Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, as well as later researchers such as Stanton Evans and Diana West, the Roosevelt administration had been thoroughly penetrated by communist agents.
We also know that Soviet communists waged a highly successful campaign to smear Pope Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope.” In addition, smear campaigns were launched to discredit several other high-ranking anti-communist prelates such as Archbishop Wojtyla. Moreover, as historian Paul Kengor asserts, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II was ordered by the GRU (Soviet military intelligence).
During the Cold War, Soviet communists viewed the Catholic Church as one of their greatest enemies, implying that the motive to undermine the Church existed; and, as exemplified by the infiltration of the Russian Orthodox Church, so did the capability.
Not every conspiracy is a theory. Real conspiracies—some with devastating results—are a part of history. Sometimes, comrade X really does instruct agent Y to infiltrate organization Z. On the other hand, it’s important to understand that not every disaster is the result of a conspiracy.
Some ideas are very seductive and they can spread widely without the help of organized conspirators. The conspiratorial movements that Marshall identifies—Freemasonry, Modernism, liberalism, and communism—all share many ideas in common. In essence, they are all forms of humanism—the idea that mankind can effect some kind of secular salvation by the proper manipulation of the social environment.
These ideas are often couched in terms that are very appealing to Christians—“peace,” “love,” “brotherhood,” “compassion,” “the dignity of man,” and the like. In many respects, these movements are counterfeits of Christianity; they have an emotional appeal for many precisely because they echo parts of the Christian message.
The Human Potential Movement In the 1960s and ’70s, the “gospel” of humanistic psychology swept through the Church with amazing speed. Almost overnight, the tenets of pop psychology were substituted for Catholic doctrine. Religious studies texts for high school students frequently cited popular psychologists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, and the cultivation of self-esteem in students became a top priority for Catholic teachers. Instead of moral precepts, students were introduced to faddish strategies such as “values clarification” and “moral reasoning.” Meanwhile, goals such as self-acceptance and self-esteem came to be seen as more important than the achievement of sanctity. And, since Human Potential Psychology had no room for the concept of sin, countless Catholics suddenly discovered that they were “OK” as they were, with the result that the practice of Confession nearly disappeared.
Many of these striking transformations in the Church are still with us today, but there is little evidence that they were the result of any deliberate conspiracy. Carl Rogers was certainly the most important figure in the Human Potential Movement. It was he who made the case that “growth psychology” could be applied to every area of life. Yet, there is no evidence that I’m aware of which would link Rogers to Masons or communists or any other conspiratorial group. Because Rogers did his graduate work at Columbia University he was almost certainly exposed to the ideas of John Dewey, the author of the “Humanist Manifesto,” but, then, so was my mother and so were about half of the teachers in America. The fact is, Rogers was rather apolitical, and was quite uncomfortable with the idea that he was looked upon as the founder of a movement. It’s difficult to imagine him as part of any conspiracy, yet the infiltration of the Church by the theories of Human Potential Psychology arguably did more harm to Catholicism than Freemasons or communists ever did.
Many who are currently in charge in the Church were formed in the milieu which Rogers helped to create. This includes Pope Francis, who once taught psychology and who seems exceedingly fond of the therapeutic psychobabble that was born in that era. Moreover, much of the Church’s current sensitivity to sexual minorities seems to be an outgrowth of the sensitivity movement spawned by Rogers and other humanistic psychologists. The concern with “acceptance,” “accompaniment,” and respect for “lived experience” seems to come straight out of the Rogerian playbook of non-directive therapy.
I have some firsthand experience of the attraction of humanistic psychology. I became interested in Rogers’ work while in graduate school, and I can attest that it had something akin to a religious appeal. Although the tenets of Humanistic Psychology contradicted key elements of Christian doctrine, it didn’t seem so to me at the time. Instead, self-esteem psychology seemed to me to be simply a more enlightened, more compassionate form of Christianity. At the same time, I was reading the work of the nouvelle theologians mentioned by Marshall—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, and the like—and what they said seemed to dovetail with what Rogers, Maslow, Fromm, and other psychologists were saying about human development and human potential.
Alas, even Rogers finally admitted that his experiments in human potential had probably done more harm than good. The prime example was the collapse of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Order of Sisters after being exposed to a two-year program of intensive encounter groups led by Rogers and his team. Within a few years of Rogers’s intervention, all 600 of the Immaculate Heart nuns had left the order.
Nevertheless, despite the damage that resulted, there appears to have been no conspiracy on the part of Rogers or any of his colleagues to infiltrate the Church. Rogers’s theories certainly have a close resemblance to Modernism and other humanistic schools of thought, but he claims that his ideas simply grew out of his own experience as a therapist. As Donald Trump might say, “No Collusion, no conspiracy.” Still, it bears repeating that one would be mistaken to jump to the opposite pole and conclude that all conspiracy theories are wild fantasies.
The Saint Gallen “Mafia” Ideas are generated by people and they are transmitted by people through articles and pamphlets, over the media, in classrooms and meetings, and in informal conversations. Marshall devotes a chapter of his book to the Saint Gallen “Mafia”—a small group of high-ranking bishops and cardinals who assembled regularly in Saint Gallen, Switzerland, to discuss reforming the Church, and also, says Marshall, to find a candidate for pope who could defeat Cardinal Ratzinger, and, after that failed, to find someone to replace him. That someone turned out to be Jorge Bergoglio.
Given that his suspicions are confirmed by other sources such as Austen Ivereigh, Marshall seems on solid ground here. But some of his musings regarding Saint Gallen rest on more shaky ground. Marshall points out that Saint Gallen was once a hotbed of communism and that it was located close to the Swiss headquarters of the Order of Templars of the Orient, a mystical religion associated with the infamous occultist, Aleister Crowley, and that Father Theodore McCarrick travelled there annually for a period of at least ten years. Marshall suggests that there might have been a link between these coincidences and the activities of the Saint Gallen “Mafia.” But contiguity does not prove conspiracy, and in the end he is only able to make rather strained symbolic connections.
However, what he says about the Saint Gallen group itself is less speculative. He names thirteen members of the “mafia,” including Cardinal Carlo Martini, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Cardinal Walter Kasper, and Cardinal Cormac Murpy-O’Connor. And his thesis is backed up by Danneel’s official biographer who explained that “the election of Bergoglio was prepared in St. Gallen” because the “election of Bergoglio corresponded with the aims of St. Gallen, on that there is no doubt.” It’s also telling that Danneels himself referred to the group as a “mafia,” and that he stood next to Bergoglio on the balcony of Saint Peter’s immediately after his election as pope.
Did the activities of the Saint Gallen group amount to a conspiracy? A plot? Or were their meetings, in the words of one critical reviewer of Marshall’s book, “the normal manner in which all human groups pursue their own interest”?
Well, that would depend on what sort of interests they were pursuing. One might suppose that when professional bank robbers get together to plan a heist, their meetings are similar in form to those of other “human groups”—first, some informal chit chat, then a call to order, then a proposal, then some feedback from group members, etc. The difference between a meeting of bank robbers and a meeting of the bank’s board of directors has to do not with form but with intent.
Marshall maintains that some bishops have crooked intentions—that they have been acting more like bank robbers than bishops. Indeed, Infiltration contains two chapters on scandals in the Vatican Bank—complete with charges of money laundering, disappearing assets, Mafia involvement (the real Mafia, not the Saint Gallen one), and mysterious murders.
Marshall concentrates on bank scandals that occurred during the papacies of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI (who called in Archbishop Viganò to straighten out the mess.) But Pope Francis has his own peculiar problem with banks. He seems to view them not as places where money can be safely deposited, but as safe places to deposit wayward priests and bishops. In 2013, he appointed Msgr. Battista Ricca as Prelate of the Vatican Bank despite Ricca’s involvement in a series of homosexual scandals. Ricca doesn’t seem to have had any particular qualification for the position, and, in view of the scandals, he seemed an unlikely candidate for such a sensitive job.
A few years later, after the Vatican received evidence of sexual abuse of seminarians by Argentine bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, Francis carved out a position for him in another Vatican financial institution—The Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. Like Ricca, Zanchetta had no qualifications for the job. On the contrary, he had been accused of mishandling diocesan funds. In June of 2019, he was formally charged with sexual abuse and could face 3 to 10 years in prison.
I bring this up because, except for a brief mention of Ricca, Marshall does not. He has very little to say about the many scandals surrounding the Francis papacy. Marshall assumes that most Catholics already realize that something is dreadfully wrong within the Church, and his book is an attempt to explain some of the historical and intellectual currents that have led to our contemporary crisis. Many Catholics know next to nothing about this historical context, and an acquaintance with the controversies over Freemasonry and Modernism would provide a much needed perspective.
“Ideas have consequences,” wrote political philosopher Richard Weaver. And it seems beyond doubt that the Church has been infiltrated and influenced over the years by ideas with damaging consequences. To what extent this infiltration of ideas was and is the result of deliberate plots is difficult to say. However, it’s important to try and find out. Harmful ideas can be more easily combatted if we know something about the motives of the people who promote them.
As some of Marshall’s critics point out, his book is not a comprehensive or definitive history of the time period that he covers; some of the plots he discusses are not proven. Nevertheless, ideas don’t simply float in over the transom. They are carried by people, and sometimes, we must assume, by people with malevolent intent. It’s not enough to say that these ideas merely reflect the culture surrounding the Church; that’s simply a way of saying that no one is responsible. Moreover, it’s not enough to dismiss people who raise the possibility of plots as mere conspiracy theorists. Until the release of the Venona Project papers in 1995, communist infiltration of government agencies during the administration of FDR was wrongly regarded by many as no more than a rightwing fantasy.
It would be nice to wait until all the facts are in regarding, say, the Saint Gallen group before speculating about their intentions, but time may be running out. As Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, a leading member of the group once said, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change this”—“this” meaning the Church founded by Christ.
Editor’s note: Above is Pope Francis appearing at the window of St Peter’s Basilica after being elected pope on March 13, 2013. Retired and scandal-ridden Cardinal Danneels of the St. Gallen mafia is second from the pope’s left. (Photo credit: FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/Getty Images)
When Chicken Littles Skojec & Moynihan cry “Schism” know we are Winning so Fight Harder
Updated: June 18, 2019
The phrase “canary in the coal mine” is a metaphor of “any warning of serious danger to come.”
This means run and run fast out of the coal mine or whatever situation you’re in because you are about to lose or be killed.
One Peter Five’s publisher Steve Skojec has become a “anti-canary in the coal mine” for me. In simple words, if Skojec says run it means to me: stay and fight.
He said Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales, Cardinal Raymond Burke and the Open Letter were wrong in saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so run away from their teachings because they’ll cause “schism.”
That told me to fight harder than ever.
Skojec said Bishop René Gracida was wrong in presenting solid evidence of papal invalidity and calling for a Cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave and Benedict XVI resignation so run away from Gracida’s teachings because they’ll cause “schism.”
That told me to fight harder than ever.
Today, Skojec said at his website “We are losing the war.”
That told me we are winning the war.
Like with Chicken Little when he cried “The sky is falling” everyone was supposed to run scared, so with Skojec when he cries “schism” everyone is suppose to run away.
Skojec is my Trad anti-canary in the coal mine, but I, also, have a conservative anti-canary in the coal mine. He is Robert Moynihan.
Today, Moynihan, who I consider Francis’s “conservative” mouthpiece in Rome, said in so many words in his Letter #31 “Battle, or dialogue” that Francis is losing the battle so “a dialogue process [needs] to begin” because “the current unease and simmering anger in the Catholic Church…. [could] lead to conflict, and even schism.”
As the people of Venezuela now know when your dictator starts calling for dialogue don’t dialogue, but fight harder than ever before he has time to reconsolidate his power in order keep you enslaved.
A few years ago, they were close to toppling the dictator, but Francis saved him by starting a dialogue process which allowed him to reconsolidate his totalitarian forces and he is still enslaving the country.
Now, apparently Francis may be in more trouble than we realized and his “conservative” mouthpiece in Rome is calling for “dialogue.”
Thanks Skojec and Moynihan for letting us know that we are apparently winning the battle and even the war.
So, we need to fight harder than ever.
Just in case you think there is no evidence that Moynihan hasn’t come to help Francis in the past and joined the secular media to help save Francis from resigning because of the now completely verified truth that Francis covered-up sex abuse then read about what happened in 2018 below.
By the way, back then he used the same Chicken Little cry as Skojec and he are using now:
Remember, when you hear”schism” it means they are about to lose, so fight harder than ever. Remember that all the souls falling into sin and possibly into hell because of the teachings of Francis (especially adulterers receiving sacrilegious Communions) are depending on you, in the the grace of God, to fight for them as well as the Bride of Jesus Christ: the Church.
But, getting back to Moynihan, here is the past evidence of where his loyalty is:
Back in 2018, the leftist Daily Beast which was called a “Democratic party mouthpiece” on Quora.com apparently joined forces with the “conservative” Francis mouthpiece Inside the Vatican editor Robert Moynihan.
They appeared to be accomplices in Pope Francis’s stonewalling against an investigation to bring out the truth of if he covered-up sex abuse as revealed by the credible Ex-Vatican Apostlic Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano in a 11-page report.
The “Democratic party mouthpiece” Daily Beast’s plot to enable Francis to cover-up the evidence that he protected sex abuse predator ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was to change the narrative.
The Democratic party mouthpiece wants to change to story from: “Why is Francis stonewalling against revealing the evidence to prove or disprove the credible allegations of Vigano?” to the Daily Beast headline: “The Plot to bring down Pope Francis.”
The Beast and Moynihan article narrative said the scandal isn’t about the credibly alleged papal sex abuse cover-up, but about those bad “traditional conservatives”:
“[T]he traditional conservatives… didn’t want a cool… pope… they preferred the cold church… of immovable doctrines.”
The Democratic party mouthpiece article quotes Moynihan saying:
“It… reveal[s] a profound struggle within the Catholic Church between factions… for “control of the narrative.'”
So for the “conservative” Francis mouthpiece Moynihan and the Beast it is about a Marxist-like dialectic of power struggles and “narratives” and must not be about what is the truth on rather the Pope covered-up sex abuse.
In fact, the truth doesn’t matter so long as the “cool” pope wins in the power struggle with the bad “cold” conservatives.
As all Marxist leaning and apparently some “conservative” postmodernists know there is no such thing as truth only “narratives.”
The truth of “cold… immoveable doctrines” or abuse cover-ups don’t matter if one can use the “narratives” to help the “cool” leftist Pope beat the “cold” traditional conservatives.
Of course, the “narrative” to enable the Pope to stonewall revealing the truth of if he covered-up is a bit differently narrated by the “conservative” Francis mouthpiece Moynihan.
The Inside the Vatican editor’s attack against the “traditional conservatives” in his Letter #54 email in 2018 was all about his great concern of the “danger” of “a split in the Church” and his hope that “Francis, even now, could lead a reform.”
He is sticking to this narrative despite the fact that he as a Vatican expert is well aware that Francis’s inner circle is riddled with homosexual and financial corruption.
He apparently doesn’t want a “split” between the honest and morally upright Catholics who believe in “immoveable doctrines” who are “exploiting this… against a popular Pope” whose inner circle is in large part made up of the corrupt “gay lobby” in the Vatican and the McCarrick pro-gay bishops network. Here is some of Moynihan’s “narrative”:
“One danger is a split in the Church.”
“… And many powerful conservative Catholics in America are exploiting this [papal gay sex abuse cover-up] revulsion… against a popular Pope.”
“… This does not mean Pope Francis should resign.”
“… Francis, even now could lead a reform.”
Of course, the Vatican expert Moynihan knows who will help Francis with those reforms: the Pope’s inner circle.
The papal inner circle of Francis’s “closest collaborators and confidants” includes Vatican Bank Msgr. Battista Ricca of the alleged “gay affairs” scandal who houses the Pope in his Vatican hotel. Vice-Pope Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga of the gay Honduras seminary scandal. C9 Cardinal Ezzati who is Francis’s collaborator of the Chile gay Barros scandal; and confidant Cardinal Coccopalmerio whose secretary is of the gay drug/orgy scandal which happened a few hundred yards away from where Francis lives in the gay Ricca’s hotel.
As Moynihan knows, these are only some of the names.
According to Vatican expert Sandro Magister, Francis has a “number of homosexual priests in his inner circle of closest collaborators and confidants.” (Magister’s Chiesa.com, December 16, 2016)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for the grace of God to fight harder for the restoration of the Church.
Trent England is executive vice president and the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, where he also directs the Save Our States project. He earned his B.A. in government from Claremont McKenna College and his J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law. He previously served as executive vice president of the Freedom Foundation and as a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. He hosts the podcast, The Trent England Show, and has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, and The Washington Times. He is a contributor to The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 30, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.
Once upon a time, the Electoral College was not controversial. During the debates over ratifying the Constitution, Anti-Federalist opponents of ratification barely mentioned it. But by the mid-twentieth century, opponents of the Electoral College nearly convinced Congress to propose an amendment to scrap it. And today, more than a dozen states have joined in an attempt to hijack the Electoral College as a way to force a national popular vote for president.
What changed along the way? And does it matter? After all, the critics of the Electoral College simply want to elect the president the way we elect most other officials. Every state governor is chosen by a statewide popular vote. Why not a national popular vote for president?
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 asked themselves the same question, but then rejected a national popular vote along with several other possible modes of presidential election. The Virginia Plan—the first draft of what would become the new Constitution—called for “a National Executive . . . to be chosen by the National Legislature.” When the Constitutional Convention took up the issue for the first time, near the end of its first week of debate, Roger Sherman from Connecticut supported this parliamentary system of election, arguing that the national executive should be “absolutely dependent” on the legislature. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, on the other hand, called for a popular election. Virginia’s George Mason thought a popular election “impracticable,” but hoped Wilson would “have time to digest it into his own form.” Another delegate suggested election by the Senate alone, and then the Convention adjourned for the day.
When they reconvened the next morning, Wilson had taken Mason’s advice. He presented a plan to create districts and hold popular elections to choose electors. Those electors would then vote for the executive—in other words, an electoral college. But with many details left out, and uncertainty remaining about the nature of the executive office, Wilson’s proposal was voted down. A week later, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed election by state governors. This too was voted down, and a consensus began to build. Delegates did not support the Virginia Plan’s parliamentary model because they understood that an executive selected by Congress would become subservient to Congress. A similar result, they came to see, could be expected from assigning the selection to any body of politicians.
There were other oddball proposals that sought to salvage congressional selection—for instance, to have congressmen draw lots to form a group that would then choose the executive in secret. But by July 25, it was clear to James Madison that the choice was down to two forms of popular election: “The option before us,” he said, “[is] between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people—and an immediate appointment by the people.” Madison said he preferred popular election, but he recognized two legitimate concerns. First, people would tend toward supporting candidates from their own states, giving an advantage to larger states. Second, a few areas with higher concentrations of voters might come to dominate. Madison spoke positively of the idea of an electoral college, finding that “there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” in such a system.
By August 31, the Constitution was nearly finished—except for the process of electing the president. The question was put to a committee comprised of one delegate from each of the eleven states present at the Convention. That committee, which included Madison, created the Electoral College as we know it today. They presented the plan on September 4, and it was adopted with minor changes. It is found in Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Federal officials were prohibited from being electors. Electors were required to cast two ballots, and were prohibited from casting both ballots for candidates from their own state. A deadlock for president would be decided by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state. Following that, in case of a deadlock for vice president, the Senate would decide. Also under the original system, the runner up became vice president.
This last provision caused misery for President John Adams in 1796, when his nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, became his vice president. Four years later it nearly robbed Jefferson of the presidency when his unscrupulous running mate, Aaron Burr, tried to parlay an accidental deadlock into his own election by the House. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, fixed all this by requiring electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president.
And there things stand, constitutionally at least. State legislatures have used their power to direct the manner of choosing electors in various ways: appointing them directly, holding elections by district, or holding statewide elections. Today, 48 states choose their presidential electors in a statewide, winner-take-all vote. Maine and Nebraska elect one elector based on each congressional district’s vote and the remaining two based on the statewide vote.
It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.
So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?
Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.
For one thing, state boundaries serve a function analogous to that of watertight compartments on an ocean liner. Disputes over mistakes or fraud are contained within individual states. Illinois can recount its votes, for instance, without triggering a nationwide recount. This was an important factor in America’s messiest presidential election—which was not in 2000, but in 1876.
That year marked the first time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It was a time of organized suppression of black voters in the South, and there were fierce disputes over vote totals in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Each of those states sent Congress two sets of electoral vote totals, one favoring Republican Rutherford Hayes and the other Democrat Samuel Tilden. Just two days before Inauguration Day, Congress finished counting the votes—which included determining which votes to count—and declared Hayes the winner. Democrats proclaimed this “the fraud of the century,” and there is no way to be certain today—nor was there probably a way to be certain at the time—which candidate actually won. At the very least, the Electoral College contained these disputes within individual states so that Congress could endeavor to sort it out. And it is arguable that the Electoral College prevented a fraudulent result.
Four years later, the 1880 presidential election demonstrated another benefit of the Electoral College system: it can act to amplify the results of a presidential election. The popular vote margin that year was less than 10,000 votes—about one-tenth of one percent—yet Republican James Garfield won a resounding electoral victory, with 214 electoral votes to Democrat Winfield Hancock’s 155. There was no question who won, let alone any need for a recount. More recently, in 1992, the Electoral College boosted the legitimacy of Democrat Bill Clinton, who won with only 43 percent of the popular vote but received over 68 percent of the electoral vote.
But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism. Here, the presidential elections of 1888 and 1892 are most instructive. In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost reelection despite receiving a popular vote plurality. He won this plurality because he won by very large margins in the overwhelmingly Democratic South. He won Texas alone by 146,461 votes, for instance, whereas his national popular vote margin was only 94,530. Altogether he won in six southern states with margins greater than 30 percent, while only tiny Vermont delivered a victory percentage of that size for Republican Benjamin Harrison.
In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House. After the Civil War, and especially after the end of Reconstruction, that meant that the Democratic Party had to appeal to interests outside the South to earn a majority in the Electoral College. And indeed, when Grover Cleveland ran again for president four years later in 1892, although he won by a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he won a resounding Electoral College majority by picking up New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and California in addition to winning the South.
Whether we see it or not today, the Electoral College continues to push parties and presidential candidates to build broad coalitions. Critics say that swing states get too much attention, leaving voters in so-called safe states feeling left out. But the legitimacy of a political party rests on all of those safe states—on places that the party has already won over, allowing it to reach farther out. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush needed every state that he won—not just Florida—to become president. Of course, the Electoral College does put a premium on the states in which the parties are most evenly divided. But would it really be better if the path to the presidency primarily meant driving up the vote total in the deepest red or deepest blue states?
Also, swing states are the states most likely to have divided government. And if divided government is good for anything, it is accountability. So with the Electoral College system, when we do wind up with a razor-thin margin in an election, it is likely to happen in a state where both parties hold some power, rather than in a state controlled by one party.
Despite these benefits of the current system, opponents of the Electoral College maintain that it is unseemly for a candidate to win without receiving the most popular votes. As Hillary Clinton put it in 2000: “In a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College.” Yet similar systems prevail around the world. In parliamentary systems, including Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, prime ministers are elected by the legislature. This happens in Germany and India as well, which also have presidents who are elected by something similar to an electoral college. In none of these democratic systems is the national popular vote decisive.
More to the point, in our own political tradition, what matters most about every legislative body, from our state legislatures to the House of Representatives and the Senate, is which party holds the majority. That party elects the leadership and sets the agenda. In none of these representative chambers does the aggregate popular vote determine who is in charge. What matters is winning districts or states.
Nevertheless, there is a clamor of voices calling for an end to the Electoral College. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has declared it “a vestige of the past,” and Washington Governor Jay Inslee has labeled it an “archaic relic of a bygone age.” Almost as one, the current myriad of Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College.
Few if any of these Democrats likely realize how similar their party’s position is to what it was in the late nineteenth century, with California representing today what the South was for their forebears. The Golden State accounted for 10.4 percent of presidential votes cast in 2016, while the southern states (from South Carolina down to Florida and across to Texas) accounted for 10.6 percent of presidential votes cast in 1888. Grover Cleveland won those southern states by nearly 39 percent, while Hillary Clinton won California by 30 percent. But rather than following Cleveland’s example of building a broader national coalition that could win in the Electoral College, today’s Democrats would rather simply change the rules.
Anti-Electoral College amendments with bipartisan support in the 1950s and 1970s failed to receive the two-thirds votes in Congress they needed in order to be sent to the states for consideration. Likewise today, partisan amendments will not make it through Congress. Nor, if they did, could they win ratification among the states.
But there is a serious threat to the Electoral College. Until recently, it has gone mostly unnoticed, as it has made its way through various state legislatures. If it works according to its supporters’ intent, it would nullify the Electoral College by creating a de facto direct election for president.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The original intent of this was to allow state legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. By contrast, NPV supporters argue that this power allows state legislatures to ignore their state’s voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote. This is what the compact would require states to do.
Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections. So far, 14 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, with a total of 189 electoral votes.
Until this year, every state that had joined NPV was heavily Democratic: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The NPV campaign has struggled to win other Democratic states: Delaware only adopted it this year and it still has not passed in Oregon (though it may soon). Following the 2018 election, Democrats came into control of both the legislatures and the governorships in the purple states of Colorado and New Mexico, which have subsequently joined NPV.
NPV would have the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College. Fraud in one state would affect every state, and the only way to deal with it would be to give more power to the federal government. Elections that are especially close would require nationwide recounts. Candidates could win based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. NPV also carries its own unique risks: despite its name, the plan cannot actually create a national popular vote. Each state would still—at least for the time being—run its own elections. This means a patchwork of rules for everything from which candidates are on the ballot to how disputes are settled. NPV would also reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Finally, each NPV state would certify its own “national” vote total. But what would happen when there are charges of skullduggery? Would states really trust, with no power to verify, other state’s returns?
Uncertainty and litigation would likely follow. In fact, NPV is probably unconstitutional. For one thing, it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional consent. There is also the fact that the structure of the Electoral College clause of the Constitution implies there is some limit on the power of state legislatures to ignore the will of their state’s people.
One danger of all these attacks on the Electoral College is, of course, that we lose the state-by-state system designed by the Framers and its protections against regionalism and fraud. This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance. Would an increase in presidents who win by small pluralities lead to a rise of splinter parties and spoiler candidates? Would fears of election fraud in places like Chicago and Broward County lead to demands for greater federal control over elections?
The more fundamental danger is that these attacks undermine the Constitution as a whole. Arguments that the Constitution is outmoded and that democracy is an end in itself are arguments that can just as easily be turned against any of the constitutional checks and balances that have preserved free government in America for well over two centuries. The measure of our fundamental law is not whether it actualizes the general will—that was the point of the French Revolution, not the American. The measure of our Constitution is whether it is effective at encouraging just, stable, and free government—government that protects the rights of its citizens.
The Electoral College is effective at doing this. We need to preserve it, and we need to help our fellow Americans understand why it matters.
Yesterday, Ann Barhnhardt posted her second Magisterial Study of Pope Benedict’s Invalid Resignation and the theological currents behind it. See here. You have to listen to this entire video to understand anything about what is going on in the Vatican today.*
*There is only one small factual error in what Mrs. Barnhardt says in this video, namely, when she says that all the vernacular translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation were made from the Italian translation, that is not true, the German is unique, as I have shown previously.
It’s rationally impossible to exclude, after Barnhardt’s marshalling of evidence, that Pope Benedict did not have a vicious and malign intention in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry, and not simply a substantial error of saying ministerium instead of munus.
This being the case, I can now offer a reasonable explanation of Why the Pope did NOT contest ANY of the 39 arguments I sent him?, which argue his resignation of ministerium did not effect a resignation of munus: The surprising answer is that Benedict acknowledges that it was NEVER his intention to resign the petrine munus, and was in fact his intention to resign only the petrine ministerium. — If you recall, in my Scholastic Question, which I sent him, I openly stated that I did not dispute the act effected a renunciation of ministerium.
There are 2 conclusions from this inference, which I say has sound probability on the basis of the 55 year history of Joseph Ratzinger in the speculations regarding transforming the papacy.
The first is that, if asked, Pope Benedict will admit openly and candidly before witnesses that he retains the Petrine Munus. He will however, on account of his error, say he does not hold the Petrine Office or the Papacy. This will seem to be an illogical self-contradiction, since it does not accord with the Latin text of Canon 145 §1: but in the Germanic School of theology to which Ratzinger belongs, the office of the Papacy is conceived as pertaining to the Petrine Ministry, that is, the active exercise of grace and vocation.
The second conclusion is, that every Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I, will see that there are now 2 reasons for the renunciation of Benedict being null and void:* namely, not only substantial error, but malign intention. The malign intention (dolus) being to split the Papal Office. Both causes are causes of the act being null and void in canon 188.*
If these 2 considerations are true, then it will be difficult to understand from speaking with Benedict at any time, for a direct answer which indicates the renunciation was invalid to effect his no longer being the Pope.
The solution of the problem, therefore, must come solely from a canonical analysis, because neither as a private theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, nor as the Pope, does he have any authority to split the Papal Office from the Papal Ministry, nor to ascribe the office of the Papacy to the one who has the Papal Ministry, but not the Papal Munus.
Finally, I wish to praise Mrs. Barnhardt for her correct theological and moral characterization of those who have contested that the renunciation was invalid, arguing instead with a faulty notion of “universal acceptance”, as “demonic”, “satanic” and “free-masonic”.
For the Good of the Church, I will close by calling on all the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and Laity, especially of the Roman Church, to return to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and recognize that
Pope Benedict is still the Pope, Bergoglio was never the Pope.
His renunciation of ministry effects nothing in Canon Law.
He is theologically confused as regards holding that the Papal Office is constituted by the one who exercises the Petrine Ministry, not the One who holds the Petrine Munus.
His deliberate intention to renounce only the Petrine Ministry was morally reprehensible and should be reprehended.
Anyone who speaks with Pope Benedict must resort to correcting him, because he not only committed a juridical error, but also a moral error, in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry.
* Barnhardt and myself, as well as nearly all the other commentators on this controversy, have been saying that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The correct Canonical phrase, however, is that Benedict never renounced the Papal Office. Because, Benedict resigned nothing, in that he never used the verb resign. (The English translation of Canon 332 §2 has “resign” in the place of the Latin “renounce”.) Also, Canon 188 does not declare acts of renunciation invalid, it declares them “irrita“, that is, not properly done, or in other words, never done at all.
Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est.
The importance of the distinction in Canon Law regarding juridical acts which are invalid and juridical acts which are irrita is that, if a juridical act of the pope be in question, since one cannot dispute the legitimacy of papal acts, you cannot judge them valid or invalid. But if they were never done, never existed, that is, if they were irriti, then they never happened. And it’s no sin or crime, but true justice to say that they are such.
One comment on “Barnhardt’s 2nd Video and the other Meaning of Benedict’s Tacit Consent”
The Editor says:June 18, 2019 at 1:23 pm To those who do not like the fact that on Feb 28, 2013 Pope Benedict explicitly stated that he resigned the active exercise of the ministry for the governance of the Church, and that he thus acknowledged that it was not his intention to renounce the petrine munus, I really cannot say anything since you are simply denying reality. That I infer from that that his intention was malign is simply a conclusion drawn from Vatican I, that Christ immediately and directly conferred upon Peter and His Successors the office of His Vicar, and that consequently the Pope has no authority to confer the Episcopacy of Rome upon anyone else, while himself remaining the Pope, nor of foregoing the exercise of the petrine ministry, as if there was no intrinsic obligation to exercise it. Because I am loyal to Christ first, not to Pope Benedict, I have to judge things as Christ taught them, not as how Benedict has decided to act.
June 16, 2019 — In April of 2019 Dr. Theresa Deisher published an open letter to legislators on the dangers of human fetal DNA that is in the MMR vaccine, as well as in the chickenpox, Pentacel, and all Hep-A containing vaccines. It is absolutely criminal that a scientific giant such as Dr. Deisher publicly warns that the MMR can cause major inflammatory autoimmune disease in children, and just two months later New York legislators repeal the religious exemption to vaccination in 8 hours with absolutely no public comment. Dr. Deisher’s letter should be read by everyone; it can be found here: https://www.soundchoice.org/open-letter-to-legislators/
The fact that human fetal DNA is used in vaccines is an irrefutable fact. For years many people said this was a lie or an “internet rumor,” but that can no longer be said. Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who is often referred to as the Godfather of the modern vaccination program, has admitted under oath in a legal deposition conducted by Aaron Siri that his rubella vaccine (among others) was created from a cell line originating from aborted human fetal tissue. You can watch Dr. Plotkin admit this under oath at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvBszdGBOxM
This obviously raises issues of religious freedom, as many religions do not believe in abortion and therefore those who observe those religions can’t in good conscience inject fetal DNA into their children. However Dr. Deisher’s argument against using human fetal tissue has nothing to do with the issues of abortion. Her issues center 100% around the documented science showing the danger of injecting human DNA into anyone, especially children.
Why should you listen to Dr. Deisher?
Dr. Deisher is one of the world’s leading experts on genetics, specifically adult stem cell research and utilization. Dr. Deisher is an inventor on 23 issued US patents, and her discoveries have led to clinical trials of FGF18 for osteoarthritis and cartilage repair, and for Factor XIII for surgical bleeding. Dr. Deisher was the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, and has been a champion of adult stem cell research, both professionally and privately for two decades.
Dr. Deisher is a major league scientific heavyweight in a category of her own.
Everyone needs to read her letter. The implications of what she presents is horrifying as it provides yet more evidence linking vaccination to the Autism epidemic as well as the autoimmune crisis our children face today.